You couldn't answer the defense attorneys questions about forcing a black baker to bake a cake for the Aryan nation or forcing a Muslim baker to bake a cake for the Westboro Baptist church. Why not?

What was quoted from the judges decision looks like a sophistry. The issue would be the same regardless of the timing of the baker's refusal to bake a cake. The couple told them it was to celebrate their gay wedding. Would you force a black baker to bake a cake if someone told him it was to celebrate white supremacy but before he said what he wanted on the cake?

There is a fascist streak in the gay rights movement. Everyone has to be forced to do what the gay rights movement wants them to do or they must be punished. The Denver Post is part of that fascist streak with their support and celebration of the law that the Democrats passed the would force people to violate their religious beliefs.

The Denver Post is eager to trample on others first amendment rights in order to advance their agenda while self-righteously clinging to their first amendment rights. If, that is, corporations should have constitutional protections. But that is another one of the Denver Post's hypocrisies.

BRT_2 wrote:Wrong. The baker is protected by the first amendment of the constitution. The judges attempt to eliminate the constitution fails as his example points to a bias not a religious belief. Liberals love to scream first amendment protection until it's someone else's beliefs. Then they play word games until the sun goes down. This editorial is nothing more than an attemp to justify a perversion.. They are clearly the most closed minded and bitter people. If you don't buy into their political correctness or point out the consequences to their warped ideology, they will call you all sorts of nasty names and wish all sorts of evil upon you. The arguments presented here are the foundation for repressive governments found throughout history. Your starting to see it more and more that not only do you have to be " tolerant" of the liberal agenda, but you must support it or you are discriminating. I hope this ruling gets challenged and the baker receives justice.

Nope, sorry. The First Amendment gives you the right to your own religious beliefs, but it does not give you the right, as a business owner, to discriminate based on those beliefs. Once a business decides to advertise its services to the public at large, it gives up the prerogative to pick and choose which customers to serve. If what this business owner wants is the right to discriminate for religious reasons, he should start a church.

Notice how this hypocrite refuses to criticize the Denver Post for doing exactly the same thing.... turning away potential customers that they don't agree with....... typical hypocrite.

What are you babbling about? The Denver Post is not refusing to sell its paper to people it disagrees with. You say they are refusing to sell ad space? Got a cite for that, or is it only happening in your febrile imagination?

The freedom that is being violated here is the bakers free exercise of his religion. Not your religion, his religion. Many religions consider marriage to be sacred. And many religions consider what you do for a living to done for the glory of God.

The racial discrimination arguments you offer aren't part of free exercise of religion. And, no, you don't get to make up your own religion to claim first amendment rights.

The Republicans tried to include religious protections in this law, but the Democrats rejected them. They want to violate our first amendment rights in order to satisfy extremists in their ranks.

Now we see the ugly reality of the Democrats gay unions law. A baker faces fines and possible jail sentences because he doesn't want to bake a cake for a gay marriage, which is unconstitutional in Colorado, even though the gay couple could easily get the same cake from someone else.

chiefig wrote:No, you don't have to sell them, you own the business and run it how you want!

Wrong. Dead wrong. By that argument, a person who owns a lunch counter can refuse to allow entrance to black people, or Hispanics, or Asians, or anybody else he likes. By that argument, a realtor can choose to "red-line" the neighborhood where his family lives, and refuse to show homes to qualified buyers who happen to be black -- or gay. By that argument, the school board in a district can decide to build schools in black neighborhoods, rather than allow black kids and white kids and Hispanic kids to go to school together.

It's all racial discrimination, it all violates individual civil liberty by definition, and it's all bull***t.

A fictional adolescent power-fantasy that was largely irrelevant when Atlas Shrugged was published 55 years ago. The character has even less relevance today, and the author, Alisa Rosenbaum, is a poor joke when it comes to philosophy.

Case in point -- no society ever founded, no matter how small, has ever been successful when based on Objectivist ideas. Every single community, without exception, that tried to use Objectivist principals -- to create its own "Galt's Gulch" -- has been a lame, ludicrous failure.

Webrew2 wrote:Forcing a business to do business with someone they consider to be immoral is wrong. If baking a cake for a married man and his mistress runs counter to your religious beliefs, you should have the right to refuse service. Freedom of religion does not mean that people limit themselves to what church or place of worship they attend. It also means that they practice those beliefs in everything they do. When the state attempts to force people to do things counter to one's beliefs, then the state has stepped over the line.

The free enterprise system will punish those who do not support their customers. But it is also possible to create a niche of customers and still be successful. The state has no place telling a business who it must do business with when not doing business is due to religious reasons. The best part about free enterprise is some other entrepreneur who does not have the same beliefs will step up and fill that role and obtain the business which the first business owner chooses not to solicit. The key word in free enterprise is free - it should never be forced enterprise.

So I guess in your ideal world, it would be OK for any business to decide it won't sell its products and services to Jewish people, or Asian people, or left-handed people, or green-eyed people, or disabled people. Sounds delightful. I'll bet you thought granting African Americans civil rights was a bad idea too.

No - not in an "ideal world", but in America where the notion of personal responsibility and individual liberty used to exist before the left decided to destroy one of the principles upon which our country was founded.

Except in the cases of public conveyances and regulated utilities and/or services, NO business owner should ever have to explain their reason(s) for serving or not serving someone. if you don't like, go somewhere else. It's a cake, not a taxi. If I don't want to sell something to blondes, that should be my decision alone. That is the very basis for individual liberties.

If people don't like someone because they are gay, black, purple, tall, short, fat, skinny, a low talker, red-headed, blonde, southern, mid-western, muslims or atheist ---- why should you or anyone else care? Forcing them do business with someone isn't going to change their feelings in the least. So what in the world do you think you are accomplishing? Do you actually think the world is somehow better because you forced someone to do something they didn't want to do?

Why don't you people admit your real motivation. This has nothing to do with some glorious imaginary sense of equality and everything to do with the fact that you just bitterly hate hate hate that hate hate hate Christians.

After the supreme court's decision overturning all partial birth abortion bans in 2000 the National Right to Life wanted to run an ad in the New York Times critical of the 5 justices. The Times refused to run the ad. (The Times supported the court's decision.)

When is the last time you saw an ad for cigarettes or liquor in the Denver Post?

BRT_2 wrote:Wrong. The baker is protected by the first amendment of the constitution. The judges attempt to eliminate the constitution fails as his example points to a bias not a religious belief. Liberals love to scream first amendment protection until it's someone else's beliefs. Then they play word games until the sun goes down. This editorial is nothing more than an attemp to justify a perversion.. They are clearly the most closed minded and bitter people. If you don't buy into their political correctness or point out the consequences to their warped ideology, they will call you all sorts of nasty names and wish all sorts of evil upon you. The arguments presented here are the foundation for repressive governments found throughout history. Your starting to see it more and more that not only do you have to be " tolerant" of the liberal agenda, but you must support it or you are discriminating. I hope this ruling gets challenged and the baker receives justice.

Nope, sorry. The First Amendment gives you the right to your own religious beliefs, but it does not give you the right, as a business owner, to discriminate based on those beliefs. Once a business decides to advertise its services to the public at large, it gives up the prerogative to pick and choose which customers to serve. If what this business owner wants is the right to discriminate for religious reasons, he should start a church.

Notice how this hypocrite refuses to criticize the Denver Post for doing exactly the same thing.... turning away potential customers that they don't agree with....... typical hypocrite.

What are you babbling about? The Denver Post is not refusing to sell its paper to people it disagrees with. You say they are refusing to sell ad space? Got a cite for that, or is it only happening in your febrile imagination?

BRT_2 wrote:Wrong. The baker is protected by the first amendment of the constitution. The judges attempt to eliminate the constitution fails as his example points to a bias not a religious belief. Liberals love to scream first amendment protection until it's someone else's beliefs. Then they play word games until the sun goes down. This editorial is nothing more than an attemp to justify a perversion.. They are clearly the most closed minded and bitter people. If you don't buy into their political correctness or point out the consequences to their warped ideology, they will call you all sorts of nasty names and wish all sorts of evil upon you. The arguments presented here are the foundation for repressive governments found throughout history. Your starting to see it more and more that not only do you have to be " tolerant" of the liberal agenda, but you must support it or you are discriminating. I hope this ruling gets challenged and the baker receives justice.

Nope, sorry. The First Amendment gives you the right to your own religious beliefs, but it does not give you the right, as a business owner, to discriminate based on those beliefs. Once a business decides to advertise its services to the public at large, it gives up the prerogative to pick and choose which customers to serve. If what this business owner wants is the right to discriminate for religious reasons, he should start a church.

Notice how this hypocrite refuses to criticize the Denver Post for doing exactly the same thing.... turning away potential customers that they don't agree with....... typical hypocrite.

What are you babbling about? The Denver Post is not refusing to sell its paper to people it disagrees with. You say they are refusing to sell ad space? Got a cite for that, or is it only happening in your febrile imagination?

Webrew2 wrote:Forcing a business to do business with someone they consider to be immoral is wrong. If baking a cake for a married man and his mistress runs counter to your religious beliefs, you should have the right to refuse service. Freedom of religion does not mean that people limit themselves to what church or place of worship they attend. It also means that they practice those beliefs in everything they do. When the state attempts to force people to do things counter to one's beliefs, then the state has stepped over the line.

The free enterprise system will punish those who do not support their customers. But it is also possible to create a niche of customers and still be successful. The state has no place telling a business who it must do business with when not doing business is due to religious reasons. The best part about free enterprise is some other entrepreneur who does not have the same beliefs will step up and fill that role and obtain the business which the first business owner chooses not to solicit. The key word in free enterprise is free - it should never be forced enterprise.

So I guess in your ideal world, it would be OK for any business to decide it won't sell its products and services to Jewish people, or Asian people, or left-handed people, or green-eyed people, or disabled people. Sounds delightful. I'll bet you thought granting African Americans civil rights was a bad idea too.

I suppose the business owner could have saved himself some grief by making it obvious (through advertising) that he would prefer to deal only with religious homophobic bigots like himself - but then he'd be refusing business from non-religious-bigot people who would prefer not to patronize such a business. But he didn't do that, did he? He tried to make it look as though his products and services were available to the public in order to maximize his sales. Well, now we know, and I expect and hope that his clientele will drop off precipitously.

Send people to jail and/or fine them for breaking Colorado's public accommodation law, which says they may not discriminate based on race, sex, religion, sexual orientation, age, disability, or any other characteristic? Why yes. I am in favor of that. These people knew the law, or should have, when they opened their businesses to the public. Colorado law says businesses must offer goods and services to all customers equally. You break that law, you pay the consequences. You don't get a pass because your backward, intolerant religion teaches that some people are icky.

If you think that makes me sound like a fascist, you obviously do not know the meaning of the word.

After the supreme court's decision overturning all partial birth abortion bans in 2000 the National Right to Life wanted to run an ad in the New York Times critical of the 5 justices. The Times refused to run the ad. (The Times supported the court's decision.)

When is the last time you saw an ad for cigarettes or liquor in the Denver Post?

In case you hadn't noticed, the Denver Post is not the NFL. It is also not two Washington, D.C. radio stations. It is also not the New York Times. It is the Denver Post.

I asked you for a cite for your claim that the Denver Post has refused to sell advertising to customers it disagrees with. Obviously you don't have one, so it probably didn't happen and you are just making things up.

I don't take the dead tree version of the paper, so I have no way of knowing whether or to what extent they run ads for liquor or cigarettes. However, cigarette and liquor advertising is highly regulated in this country - that is not just the policy of the Denver Post.

Webrew2 wrote:Forcing a business to do business with someone they consider to be immoral is wrong. If baking a cake for a married man and his mistress runs counter to your religious beliefs, you should have the right to refuse service. Freedom of religion does not mean that people limit themselves to what church or place of worship they attend. It also means that they practice those beliefs in everything they do. When the state attempts to force people to do things counter to one's beliefs, then the state has stepped over the line.

The free enterprise system will punish those who do not support their customers. But it is also possible to create a niche of customers and still be successful. The state has no place telling a business who it must do business with when not doing business is due to religious reasons. The best part about free enterprise is some other entrepreneur who does not have the same beliefs will step up and fill that role and obtain the business which the first business owner chooses not to solicit. The key word in free enterprise is free - it should never be forced enterprise.

So I guess in your ideal world, it would be OK for any business to decide it won't sell its products and services to Jewish people, or Asian people, or left-handed people, or green-eyed people, or disabled people. Sounds delightful. I'll bet you thought granting African Americans civil rights was a bad idea too.

No - not in an "ideal world", but in America where the notion of personal responsibility and individual liberty used to exist before the left decided to destroy one of the principles upon which our country was founded.

Except in the cases of public conveyances and regulated utilities and/or services, NO business owner should ever have to explain their reason(s) for serving or not serving someone. if you don't like, go somewhere else. It's a cake, not a taxi. If I don't want to sell something to blondes, that should be my decision alone. That is the very basis for individual liberties.

If people don't like someone because they are gay, black, purple, tall, short, fat, skinny, a low talker, red-headed, blonde, southern, mid-western, muslims or atheist ---- why should you or anyone else care? Forcing them do business with someone isn't going to change their feelings in the least. So what in the world do you think you are accomplishing? Do you actually think the world is somehow better because you forced someone to do something they didn't want to do?

Why don't you people admit your real motivation. This has nothing to do with some glorious imaginary sense of equality and everything to do with the fact that you just bitterly hate hate hate that hate hate hate Christians.

I don't hate Christians. Some of my best friends are Christians. What I hate are hypocritical bigots who use religion to justify their bigotry; people who call themselves Christians but practice hate instead. Jesus said nothing about homosexuality, and hatred is not a Christian value.

indubitablysnarky wrote:Let me know when the DP comes out against the local Muslim cabbies who refuse for religious reasons to pick up passengers with seeing eye/service dogs.

There's a lawsuit ripe for the pickings.

I wonder if the ACLU will spring into action on that one?

Its not complicated. If you have knowledge of what you describe (which is illegal), turn the cab number over to the licensing bureau. If found to be true, amongst other penalties, the cab driver will lose his/her license. Until you take that step, I doubt the voracity of your claim. The couple that was illegally discriminated against by the cake baker didn't write to the DP for enforcement.

Bellarubia wrote:You do reserve the right to refuse.... The reason this bakery refused was ridiculous but they have a right to refuse services....

They can refuse but have to provide a reason. If the reason they provide (as in this case) violates the law then what they are doing is illegal. Breaking the law has consequences which they will now face if they don't mend their illegal ways.

BRT_2 wrote:Wrong. The baker is protected by the first amendment of the constitution. The judges attempt to eliminate the constitution fails as his example points to a bias not a religious belief. Liberals love to scream first amendment protection until it's someone else's beliefs. Then they play word games until the sun goes down. This editorial is nothing more than an attemp to justify a perversion.. They are clearly the most closed minded and bitter people. If you don't buy into their political correctness or point out the consequences to their warped ideology, they will call you all sorts of nasty names and wish all sorts of evil upon you. The arguments presented here are the foundation for repressive governments found throughout history. Your starting to see it more and more that not only do you have to be " tolerant" of the liberal agenda, but you must support it or you are discriminating. I hope this ruling gets challenged and the baker receives justice.

Sorry, that's not correct. There is freedom of speech to speak out against someone else or even a group of people. There is freedom to worship according to your own religious beliefs. Neither right allows you to discriminate against someone. Discrimination is anti American and hateful. And one should not be cocky in their views to protect people who are mean and discriminate because someday you may be the one being treated unfairly.

It's worth me copying-and-pasting my post from the other comments section on the other article....------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think -- admirably -- people have been tip-toeing around this whole thing, and handling it with kid gloves.

But ....

This is ridiculous. Just patently, flat-out, astoundingly ridiculous.

If your religion TRULY (which is debatable) tells you that gay marriage is wrong ... well ... your religion is wrong. There isn't a single logical, fact-based reason in the world why consenting adults, in love, shouldn't be allowed to marry. I [wait for it] actually don't CARE what the Mud People of Papua New Guinea think about the subject. Nope. Not one bit.

What about polygamy and incest ??

Personally, I don't care how many spouses you have, or whether you marry your sibling. Nor do I see any reason for the government to care.

You can argue all you want to about why *you think* this is different from racism, or the stand people took against interracial marriage. It's NOT different.

Nor does it really matter whether sexual orientation is a choice (no way. Not in my experience) or innate (absolutely, in the case of my gay friends AND family, who were ALWAYS gay).

Why WOULD that matter ? Even IF it's a "behavior of choice," it's NOT murder, arson, theft, or battery. They are NOT hurting anybody. If YOUR opposite-sex marriage is somehow made less by this marriage, seek couples' counseling.

If the "institution OF marriage" is somehow weakened by granting EQUAL RIGHTS to all of our citizens, then that's just tough cookies (or wedding cake). Those who are playing with those statistics ... need a course in Logic. Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc is a good place to begin THAT journey.

Too many are hiding behind the *excuse* that their religion says this or that, when:

a) It really doesn't

b) It says a LOT of things that most religious hypocrites cleverly forget

c) It's a book. Sorry. I know this is earth-shattering news, but ... it's a book ... from a LONG, LONG time ago.

It's called dogma:

An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true.

It's NOT "absolutely true."

I don't care if it once was. I don't care if it EVER was. A LOT of things were once considered perfectly okay -- things that the VAST majority of us now find repugnant, and/or illegal.

That MAY blow a few particularly conservative minds, but ... C'est la vie.

I FIRMLY believe (and this is supported EVERY time race comes up -- just read the comments sections) that the ONLY reason we don't see more OVERT discrimination against (women or) people of color is ... that it's now ILLEGAL to do so.

Bigots are bigots.

Prejudiced people are prejudiced people.

It's pretty binary: you're either prejudiced or you are not.

If you're still clinging to the archaic notion that there's something inherently, fundamentally, 'naturally,' or 'morally' wrong with people of the same sex marrying ... let it go. It's ony dogma. You PROBABLY won't turn into a pillar of salt ... the DJIA PROBABLY won't crash ... there PROBABLY won't be a spate of plagues visited upon our nation ... if you let it go.

Faith. Have faith. HAVE FAITH that NOTHING bad will happen if Adam DOES marry Steve.

If that means you can't be a member of your particular club any longer ... find another club. There are a nearly infinite number of such clubs.

But your pathological need to have a death grip on your particular brand of dogma IS hurting others. It's denying them a VERY simple, VERY basic, and VERY fundamental Civil Right. It's making them second-class citizens. It is TRYING to resurrect the LONG-dead doctrine of "Separate but Equal."

Bad, BAD move.

It WAS just a cake. Irrelevant.

Maybe they DID seek out Jack Phillips. ALSO irrelevant. THEIR choice. Phillips broke the law. HIS choice.

And your "logic" (I hate using that term, when there's nothing whatsoever logical about your rationale) SHOULD be extended, to see if it's worthy. If a gay couple -- according to you -- needs to go door to door to see which baker will NOT discriminate against them, then why WOULDN'T you argue that it's perfectly fine for a black person to wait for THE bus whose driver DOESN'T have a 'religious' or 'moral' problem with black people ?

Or Jews.

Or Muslims.

Or Catholics.

Or Christians.

Or women.

Or elderly people.

Or disabled people.

This country has a LONG history of taking WAY too long to move -- category by category -- toward simple equal rights, because a minority of its citizens lack a certain amount, and kind of empathy, reason, compassion, tolerance -- whatever you want to call it.

And "consenting adults" IS NOT the beginning of a slippery slope. It does NOT include marrying your goat, or your eight year-old niece.

Every time I hear those asinine arguments, I'm reminded of how sad it is that our public schools are woefully unequipped to adequately educate kids in the RRR's, because ... it's painfully obvious how desperately we need required classes in Critical Thinking and Logic, too.

Several times, in the last year, I've read stories about how parents -- following the books written by leaders of their faith beat their kids -- sometimes to death, but at LEAST to the point that bones were broken, and hospitalization was required. This was -- we are to believe -- Biblical discipline.

Are you really going to tell me that their Freedom of Religion right is paramount, in those cases ? Their beliefs were clearly in conflict with a number of laws.

What happens when I start a religion that doesn't accept Health, Safety, and Labor Laws ?

Or speed limits.

Or your "profane" and "worldly" views on rape ?

Or your rights to own property -- real or otherwise ?

The New Mexico Supreme Court -- in ELANE PHOTOGRAPHY v. VANESSA WILLOCK -- said that a merchant COULD use his First Amendment rights, for example, to post a sign in his shop, reading,

"I do not support same-sex marriage."

But ... if he refused to bake a cake for (or photograph) a gay couple's wedding, on the grounds that this baker STATED -- they WOULD be guilty of discrimination.

Now, I HATE that somebody HAS those bigoted thoughts, and -- worse -- that they might feel so strongly about it that they WOULD post such a sign.

But that's free speech, and -- as much as I hate it -- I will defend your right to proudly display your bigotry, in that fashion. Heck, I'm grateful when bigots stand tall, speak loud, and walk proud. Saves a lot of guess-work.

But THAT'S where the line is, and THAT'S where the line SHOULD be.

You discriminate, you pay.

If you human anachronisms want to go to Masterpiece Cakeshop, and build a shrine to Jack Phillips, be my guest.

If you want to spend your kids' college funds buying an endless stream of cakes FROM Masterpiece, be my guest.

If you want to sell the RV, and donate to his legal defense fund (as SO many -- probably like-minded -- folks did with dear, sweet George Zimmerman), be my guest.

But if you discriminate, you should expect to be punished.

And I'll support THAT, too, in a full-throated manner.

Remember:

Q: What is a protected class?A: The Colorado Civil Rights laws were written to protect groups of people who historically have been or who might be discriminated against. These protected classes (characteristics) include: Disability, Race, Color, National Origin, Ancestry, Sexual Orientation, Sex (includes pregnancy), Creed, Religion (employment and housing only), Age (employment only), Marriage to a Co-Worker (employment only), Marital Status (housing and public accommodations only), and Familial Status (housing only).

dwschulze wrote:There is a fascist streak in the gay rights movement. Everyone has to be forced to do what the gay rights movement wants them to do or they must be punished.

You're slightly amusing. I'll give you that.

Fascism:a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.b. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.

Nope. Don't see it. Don't see even a sliver OF it.

I DO see laws that exist to punish discrimination. In Colorado, that includes any members of a "protected class:" [emphasis added]

The Colorado Civil Rights laws were written to protect groups of people who historically have been or who might be discriminated against. These protected classes (characteristics) include: Disability, Race, Color, National Origin, Ancestry, Sexual Orientation, Sex (includes pregnancy), Creed, Religion (employment and housing only), Age (employment only), Marriage to a Co-Worker (employment only), Marital Status (housing and public accommodations only), and Familial Status (housing only).

So gay people are included in the "protected classes," making it illegal for a Place of Public Accommodation TO discriminate against them:

Places of public accommodation include such places as a restaurant, hospital, hotel, retail store, and public transportation, among others. Prohibited discriminatory practices in places of public accommodation must be based on certain protected classes and include: terms of service, denial of full and equal service, intimidation, failure to accommodate, advertising, retaliation, and other practices.

This couple went to a cake baker, asking that he do the extraordinary -- bake them a cake.

Because they're gay, and he's against gay marriage, he refused. He broke the law.

Textbook discrimination.

I haven't seen where the "fascism" comes in, yet.

But ... discrimination ? Oh, yeah.

I know LOTS of people referred to Rosa Parks in the vilest and most repugnant of terms, when she decided NOT to just "take her place" in the rear of the bus.

Maybe Ms. Parks was being a fascist, too. I tend to doubt it, though.

People DO tend to get a bit miffed when they're discriminated against, treated like second-class citizens, or -- in the extreme -- attacked, beaten, killed, lynched ... simply for being who they are.

I'm sorry if they don't just "stay in the closet" to make you happier, to keep your life simple, or to prevent whatever neanderthal reaction you're prone to.

But this is America.

Gay people shouldn't have to go door-to-door, trying to find a merchant who will NOT discriminate against them.

Black people shouldn't have to spend all day at the bus stop, waiting for THE bus driver who IS willing to carry black passengers.

We DID the "Separate but Equal" thing, and -- finally realizing what an egregious mistake THAT was, we overturned it. We are NOT going back to that.

What if the rank discrimination were against, say, Christians ?

[NB: it is NOT going on, today. You do hear SPEECH (perfectly allowed), but the actions -- including efforts at creating discriminatory legislation ? No. Doesn't happen. Not yet, anyway.]

What if the next proposed Constitutional Amendment prevented Christians from marrying Other Christians ?

What if there were a Bill put forward, in the House, revoking the tax-exempt status of churches ?

Bigotry is bigotry, and ... you who have ANY problem with same-sex marriage are bigots, plain and simple.

Because, you see, there IS NO logical reason why loving, consenting adults shouldn't be allowed to marry.

[NB: "consenting adults" does NOT include farm animals, or your eight year-old niece -- yet ANOTHER thing that some of you -- mind-bogglingly -- can't seem to figure out.]

Our nation has been pitifully slow to get where we need to be: equal rights, across the board.

These are NOT rapists, pedophiles, axe murderers or terrorists. They're simply people.

We don't NEED to know if sexual orientation is genetic or not; it doesn't matter. There's nothing wrong with them, nothing to treat. Nobody being harmed.

Attraction to another human being .... to me ... is no harder to understand than FERVENT and UNQUESTIONING belief in The Invisible Guy in the Sky.

Truly. I think it's much easier to understand than the belief in something for which there is absolutely no evidence.

But that's me.

Personally, I'm getting sick of those of you who cherry-pick your ONE very old, very antiquated book, and use IT to rationalize your own insecurities, fears, and intolerance.

When it's convenient.

And when it's inconvenient, you summarily ignore about 700 other "sins."

Lovely.

The Library of Congress has over 35,000,000 books. It's time to broaden your literary repertoire -- maybe branching out into authors that DON'T advocate bigotry, judgment, and intolerance.

Meanwhile, try a TRUE act of faith: don't be the contemporary equivalent of the Klan. Let gay marriage happen.

Watch CLOSELY. Your marriages won't unravel (unless they were already in trouble). The stock market won't crash. We will NOT be visited by Biblical plagues.

And the "institution of marriage" will survive just fine -- just as it did after the Loving v. Virginia ruling, in 1967.

People did not SUDDENLY become inexplicably compelled to marry somebody from another race, where -- before the ruling -- they'd never given it a thought.

Have FAITH that it will all be okay. Have FAITH that The Fascist Gay Mafia (that really DOESN'T exist) won't have an enormous Marketing Department, designed to recruit your kids.

That's really more the purview of many organized religions, anyway.

And people really ARE born gay or straight. There's not a doubt in my mind, from reading, from gay friends and family -- people who I've known all my/their lives. They were always gay.

It's morning in America, Folks, and it's almost the year 2014. This is NOT the Deep South. It is NOT the 1950's.

LOTS of studies show that the brains of "extremely conservative" people have MUCH more trouble adapting to change.

Simply put: that's your problem.

Change is permanent, and the momentum is incontrovertible: gay marriage WILL be the law of the land within my lifetime. It will only TAKE decades BECAUSE of the stubborn resistance TO change that so many have, based on the fears, insecurities, and tribalism that forces them to take hold of their dogmas like a tree in a hurricane.

This is the very example of why the Senate voted to use the Nuclear Option. Judges legislating.

Masterpiece Cakeshop was set up for this very reason. So a statement could be made. How many other cake shop are in the area? How many of those cake shops don't care?

This is an example of how the left wants to control talk radio, through the "Fairness Act". If the left could find a Judge to force conservative talk radio to comply, by changing their format, to include liberal talk they???d do it. However the air ways are control by the FCC, so it takes an act of Congress. Unfortunately cake shops don???t have that type of protection.